Gay rights supporters seek anti-bias bill
09.23.2009 4:17pm EDT
(Washington) Two openly gay members of Congress on Wednesday urged their colleagues to pass a sweeping job discrimination bill that would – for the first time – protect gays and transsexuals from workplace bias.
The testimony from Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., comes as supporters of the measure believe Congress is closer than ever to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.Frank told the House Education and Labor Committee that opponents of the bill often accuse the gay rights community of pushing a “radical agenda.”
“Trying to get a job or join the military has not been the hallmark of radicalism,” he said.
Baldwin, whose home state of Wisconsin was the first to pass a law protecting gay employees from bias in 1982, said it was time “to bring our laws in line with the reality of American life.”
The Employment Nondiscrimination Act would ban employers from making any decisions about hiring, firing, promotions or pay based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It would exempt the military, religious groups and businesses with fewer than 15 employees.
Opponents complain some of the bill’s language is too murky. It offers protection based on “perceived” sexual orientation and for workers who have “undergone” or are “undergoing” gender transition without defining those terms.
“It does not take a legal scholar to recognize that such vaguely defined protections will lead to an explosion in litigation and inconsistent judicial decisions,” said Minnesota Rep. John Kline, the committee’s top Republican.
Craig Parshall, general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters, warned lawmakers the bill would subject religious groups to “a crazy quilt” of inconsistent court decisions and send a “chilling pall” over their activities.
He also argued that for-profit faith-based groups, like Christian radio stations, would be denied any exemption at all from the measure.
The House passed a similar bill two years ago – without protections for transgender workers – but it stalled in the Senate and faced the possibility of a veto from President George W. Bush. This time, President Barack Obama supports the bill.
Stuart Ishimaru, acting chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said the measure would not create the chaos and confusion predicted by opponents.
Frank says chances have improved for passage, given a stronger Democratic majority this year. A House vote is expected later this year, but the Senate is not expected to consider it until next year.
Twenty-one states already ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 12 states also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.





“businesses with fewer than 15 employees.”
What is the logical reason for this? With so many small businesses out there making up the bulk of employers they should not be able to freely discriminate. What is the difference whether it is 10 or 10,000 employees?
“It does not take a legal scholar to recognize that such vaguely defined protections will lead to an explosion in litigation”
And it doesn’t take an idiot to realize that if you discriminate you will get sued over it. Solution: Don’t discriminate and you wont get sued for it.
Also if all the “straights” have the right to bring frivolous, wack job lawsuits why can’t us Queer’s do it too?
Living in oregon I think we need a fed mandate since 1/2 the counties here it is legal & lawfull to evict or fire anyone who is gay!Forcing any gay person in anywere but portland.To be closeted to employers & landlords. It may not be ideal but as I see it better then it is today!
It always amazes me when someone complains that a bill doesn’t exempt them.
Yeah. That’s kind of the point. No one is above the law.
Living in oregon I think we need a fed mandate since 1/2 the counties here it is legal & lawfull to evict or fire anyone who is gay!Forcing any gay person in anywere but portland.To be closeted to employers & landlords. It may not be ideal but as I see it better then it is toda
Jessie, this is not true.
Oregon Equality Act. This has been law since January 1st, 2008.
>“Trying to get a job or join the military has not been the hallmark of radicalism,” he said.
I love Barney.
Go ENDA! (Oregon may have an ENDA-like law, but 30 or states do not have one.)
>What is the difference whether it is 10 or 10,000 employees?
Ability of HR to reconfigure teams to accommodate personal styles and preferences.
I’m OK with this provision. It’s not perfect, but it has its basis in the reality of trying to configure and reconfigure a work force.